Hernia Mesh Victims File Motion for Multi-District Litigation

Santa Clara, CAFifteen hernia mesh victims have filed a motion with the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation seeking to consolidate and centralize Atrium’s ProLite and ProLoop mesh claims before one judge in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The motion for transfer was filed in December 2021 by plaintiffs with Atrium ProLite and ProLoop mesh complications. Their cases are currently pending in four different U.S. District Courts, but they are almost identical cases, so it makes sense that they be centralized as part of an MDL. Plaintiffs argue that separate lawsuits may result in “duplicative discovery, inconsistent pretrial rulings and a waste of judicial resources” and transferring their cases “will promote the just and efficient conduct of [the] actions by ensuring centralized oversight of pretrial fact development in what are likely to be identical class actions,” according to the court document.

The motion also says the transfer will further “the convenience of the parties and witnesses,” since each of the plaintiffs will be deposing the same witnesses and obtaining the same corporate documents to prove their respective cases. As for the venue, Plaintiffs indicate that the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California is the most appropriate because most cases are already pending in that Court and it has the capacity and capability to effectively manage an Atrium ProLite and ProLoop MDL, reported aboutlawsuits.com.

Atrium ProLite and ProLoop Mesh

The ProLite and ProLoop surgical mesh implants are made by Atrium, a medical device company based in New Hampshire. Atrium is already facing thousands of mesh lawsuits with its C-Qur mesh and now its ProLite and ProLoop complaints are similar: the products are defective because the mesh is made with polypropylene material that the body rejects: when the body identifies a foreign object it triggers an immune system result that can result in serious health problems. 

Another problem is that the polypropylene contracts and expands inside the body, allowing cracks to form. These cracks can result in nerve and tissue fibers getting trapped in them, causing severe pain. Several studies have determined that these cracks occur in 35-50% of cases using polypropylene surgical mesh implants within four weeks after surgery. Lawsuits claim that Atrium knew about these problems but chose to ignore the reports and continued to market its mesh products.

Other Hernia Mesh MDL's

Alleged defects and product liability claims involving different manufacturers, including Bard and Ethicon Physiomesh, are almost identical enough to discuss collectively and have been centralized as part of separate MDLs. The three hernia mesh MDLs currently pending are:

• Atrium C-Qur Mesh MDL (In re: Atrium Medical Corp. C-Qur Mesh Products Liability Litigation – MDL-2753)
• Bard Hernia Mesh MDL (In re: Davol, Inc./C.R. Bard, Inc., Polypropylene Hernia Mesh Products Liability Lit. – MDL-2846).
• Ethicon Hernia Mesh MDL (In re: Ethicon Physiomesh Flexible Composite Hernia Mesh Products Liability Lit.– MDL-2782)

If this motion for transfer request is granted, it will be the second hernia mesh MDL involving Atrium. And more lawsuits are expected – recalled mesh products are still in use. More than 1 million hernias are repaired in the U.S. every year and hernia mesh is used in approximately 80 percent of those repairs, according to the FDA.